The British chancellor, Philip Hammond, was roundly criticised on November 19 after claiming there were “no unemployed people” during a BBC interview with Andrew Marr.

While the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics showed a fall in unemployment in the UK, there are still 1.42m out of work. And there is growing concern about the UK’s increasingly precarious and insecure labour market.

This is coupled with welfare reforms that have affected those claiming unemployment benefits. Not least has been the introduction of Universal Credit, a one-stop benefit, which has intensified the conditions that are placed on people before they can receive welfare payments. This type of “welfare conditionality”, which includes demonstrating up to 35 hours per week job search activity, also applies to people who receive Universal Credit but are working.

We have been involved in several research projects about the issues facing people who move from the benefits system into insecure work. As part of an ongoing national study focusing on welfare conditionality, one man talked about his experience of starting zero hours work in food processing in the north of England. In his first week, he was told he would receive a text message saying whether he was needed the next day. For two days he didn’t receive any messages.

Then the third day they gave me an option to just go up there and be a spare, so literally if people don’t turn up you can go up there and stand around for half an hour and if they don’t turn up then they’ll use you. So I went up there, it was quite early in the morning, 7 o’clock; I was up at 5.45 to get there. I hung around for half an hour. I wasn’t offered any work.

This man did manage to secure more hours, but the job was still temporary and he remained on Universal Credit throughout this experience, knowing that he would be relying on the benefit again once the temporary work ended. This meant that in addition to worrying about whether or not he would have work from one day to the next, there were also still expectations on him from the Jobcentre to attend appointments and continue looking for work.

Corralled into precarious jobs

Precarious workers often work in several jobs, but can still live in deep poverty. People with precarious work often have unpredictable or insufficient working hours and schedules which lead to irregular income and significant pay penalties. This can in turn cause increased levels of debt, a limited choice of housing, or even eviction, as well as negative consequences for personal well-being.

Another of our studies showed that the first contact with precarious jobs often starts at the Jobcentre where claimants are encouraged, directed or coerced to apply for low-skilled, low-paid and precarious jobs, such as temporary agency work and zero-hours work.

Not doing so might lead to benefit sanctions – meaning their benefits will be suspended. A man we spoke to who lived in Derbyshire told us:

I got offered a job with an agency in Manchester with no expenses for travel and so on. I said ‘no’ and then was sanctioned for refusing work.

Not what workers want

Our research using the Annual Population Survey of over 100,000 employees in the UK is showing that precarious working contracts and conditions are driven mainly by employers’ demands for flexibility – not what workers want. Only one in five of temporary agency workers in the UK included in the survey actually prefer to work in a temporary job. Many of the people we interviewed would not choose to work for an agency, would not recommend working for an agency and would like to see zero-hours contracts banned. This is contrary to what the prime minister, Theresa May, claimed earlier in the year.

Employer-driven flexibility also puts people in a situation where they have a limited power to negotiate their working conditions, as our research and other studies have found. We heard many stories of how peoples’ working hours were cut, changed at a short notice or their jobs were taken away only because they weren’t – as one person we spoke to put it – “servile to management”.

Our research also shows that precarious working arrangements are also often coupled with employment practices that disadvantage workers. Many are often not provided with an employment contract or wage slips, and are not paid for holidays, sick leave or lunch breaks. Others are not paid for their work, as firms claims the hours were only an “induction”.

While government statistics may show a decreasing number of unemployed people, it’s too easy to point to this as a success. These figures hide the harsh experiences of many in today’s job market, in which the precarity of employment can create a cycle of moving back and forth between periods of paid work and reliance on benefits.

Conference

Latest Comments

You also have an exact and clear idea of how all this affects people who are actually caught up in it. Unfortunately, the people who are responsible for these policies and decisions have never had to deal with it so there is no understanding and no empathy. We are losing our humanity in today's society.

Why would people then bother to make a home and spend money on it? We have to get away from this mindset that has now taken hold that Social Housing.....hate that term, is just temporary to suit your immediate needs. People should not have to up sticks all the time because a child gets older etc. When the old system was in place ie older people with larger homes than they needed they were offered incentives to downsize. In the 90's more Older peoples accommodation was built. Bungalows, Sheltered Housing etc. People were given help with removal costs. This has all changed. To make someone move from a home they have been in for years is cruel if it is not voluntary. I have been in my home since it was built. My daughter moved out as she should when grown up to make her own home. So after 23 years with roots well and truly down, should I be made to move? I have my granddaughter to stay. My daughter's room is now for her and was also an office when I worked from home. I could not fit my home into a small 1 bedroom flat. I do not want people living above me. This idea that if you live in Social Housing it is just accommodation but if you own it is your home is totally wrong. My parents moved willingly into Sheltered Housing but the change affected them drastically. My dad became stressed and ill and died a year later and my mother never settled and died a few years later. This was because they uprooted themselves and left their home and all the memories and familiar surroundings. Unfortunately like most issues these days, the humanity is being taken out of it.

Great resources on linking welfare sanction and conditionally and key social policy considerations with human rights principles (including dignity, non-discrimination). These considerations have a huge impact in narratives around poverty and vulnerability, and should be closely looked at by policy decision-makers and street-level bureaucrats.

Ok. I don’t agree with the bedroom tax but I do feel it would be a better option if housing rules were changed. For example why do they wait until kids are over 10 until giving families two bedrooms?
Then I also think housing should be fit for purpose so I believe when they move someone from a one bedroom to a 2 or 3 it should be with the understanding only until the children grow up and leave home then they should have their Tennancy moved back to something more suitable again like a one bedroom.

A fine well written and clear example of what is broken in our welfare system.
They are asking for submission for the next select committee meeting on welfare and I would submit this post if it were my choice.
It is a vicious cycle for some who have no chance of finding work however hard they might try. It is the employers who ultimately make the decision if employees are fit and ready to work, not the DWP.
Having a budget of £2 per day for food , job searching activities, keeping your appearance and strength up, and having to jump through hoops and tick boxes on all those strength zapping, soul destroying schemes courses and programs that do nothing but heap yet even more pressure and stress.
The affects of stress on both mental and physical health are well documented and nothing can be more stressful than not knowing week in, week out, that your hand to mouth existence is constantly at risk.
Sanctions are death sentences for some, no getting away from that fact, those charged with administrating the regime should hang their heads in shame, it is those who should make the stand to bring about change.
Or do they deceive themselves into believing long time shirker Jim who they sanctioned last month and who has not been seen again at the local JCP, Is now enjoying the fruits of his labor thanks to the Works Coaches helpful push they so desperately needed.
So clearly sanctions work and a good done job done by me, high five everyone.